1.26 - Jordan Love [QB; Utah State] - QB1

[Joe]

1 minute ago, {Family Ghost} said:

You can do both .. they are probably hopeful that they locked down the future with Love and now they can focus on putting weaponry around Aaron and adding to the D.  I think they have 8 picks left, free agency after the draft, and potential trades that could be made.  There will be some veterans that get cut in the coming months.  

Look at our salary cap situation. Even if we cut Lane Taylor, we don't have enough room to sign an impact player.

 

2 minutes ago, PossibleCabbage said:

Queen would get washed out in the run game if the DL in front of him can't keep him clean- he's a 230 lb LB who likes to try to run around blocks.  He wouldn't work in this defense; or rather you could rework the defense to work for him but it would make everybody else less effective.

Blacklock has the achilles issue and the Packers are medically conservative as an organization, and to boot we can't do physicals for guys.

Higgins is a big, slow contested catch receiver.  We have a bunch of big, fast receivers and a QB who won't throw 50/50 balls.

Didn't know about that...

As for Queen, why interview him at the combine AND give him a virtual meeting if you don't think he'd fit the defense? Honestly, I felt we were looking at him to be the player we hoped Burks would be with Kirksey acting as a mentor of sorts.

[beekay414]

Just now, Ragnarok said:

I get your issues with Blacklock and Higgins.  I disagree strongly on Queen.  I think he would be perfect to help us defend against a team like the 49ers who make you defend the entire field.  

There are a few later options that can do the exact same thing as Queen. You don't invest a 1 into ILB unless he's a generational talent. 

[Ragnarok]

Just now, incognito_man said:

oh, I see. The misunderstanding is your definition of "good" vs "great".

Great = winning the SB every year. Good = something less?

We were good last year.  But we had zero chance of beating the 49ers.  I also think the Titans, Ravens, or Chiefs would have spanked us.  

We were good, but we didn't actually have a realistic chance to win the SB.  That's where the great teams are.

I want us to get to that level of great, and last night did not do that.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

6 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

That's my point.  They're trying to have it both ways cause they're scared to really go all-in.  This gives them an excuse.

I think what is missing is what their board looked like.  If they truly believed that Love was in a tier above the rest of the picks, then this is the wise pick,

You can't always go need if there is a better tiered player because you never actually know that the better player won't play.

Rodgers could go the way of Majkowski and get an injury that makes it so he never plays significant downs again.  You just never know.

I just hope they are correct in their evaluation.

Edited April 24, 2020 by Ragnar Danneskjold

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

1 minute ago, Ragnarok said:

We were good last year.  But we had zero chance of beating the 49ers.  I also think the Titans, Ravens, or Chiefs would have spanked us.  

We were good, but we didn't actually have a realistic chance to win the SB.  That's where the great teams are.

I want us to get to that level of great, and last night did not do that.

Were there any moves from 30 that would have done that though?

[Ragnarok]

1 minute ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

I think what is missing is what their board looked like.  If they truly believed that Love was in a tier above the rest of the picks, then this is the wise pick,

You can't always go need if there is a better tiered player because you never actually know that the better player won't play.

Rodgers could go the way of Majkowski and get an injury that makes it so he never plays significant downs again.  You just never know.

I don't think you can take the bolded into account.  

But yes, I would be interested to see their board.

[Ragnarok]

Just now, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

Were there any moves from 30 that would have done that though?

Take a player at a position of need.  OT, DL, LB, WR.

I'm a big fan of Queen and think he will be very good.  And the Ravens scooped him up right after us.

[Gopackgonerd]

Why are we labeling this pick as scared? You dont trade up for a QB in round 1 if you're scared, that's a ballsy move when you have Aaron Rodgers still. Gute just said Aaron was the best QB in the league still in his presser yesterday, you can take that quote as you will, but if Gute was really scared he still wouldn't believe Rodgers wasnt still in his plans while drafting Love. If anything Gute is more confident in the rest of the roster to draft a QB than us as fans do. 

[PossibleCabbage]

4 minutes ago, Joe said:

As for Queen, why interview him at the combine AND give him a virtual meeting if you don't think he'd fit the defense?

I feel like part of this is that you're not sure about how he's going to fit, and you're trying to find out.  It's conceivable they decided against it because they did so much work on him.

The big issue with him is that he can't get off blocks so you need to keep him clean up front, and Pettine doesn't want to do that.

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, Ragnarok said:

The Titans, Steelers, and Bills are pretty happy they traded up for their off ball LBs.

The coaching staff knows Rodgers can cover up a lot of flaws on offense and so them taking a QB is more about their jobs than winning.

Wanna explain this one to me?  The bolded one?

I don't even care about the first one.  I disagree about trading up for an off ball linebacker.  Said I'd give you Queen because it wasn't a large trade up.  I can't even remember who the Titans traded up for.  Thinking Bush for Steelers, who weren't in the playoffs, though injuries rocked that team.  Bills?  I don't think they traded up for that kid, did they?  And what was his PFF score again?  I can't recall, and can't remember my password to get in there.  But I don't think it was anything special.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Just now, Ragnarok said:

I don't think you can take the bolded into account.  

But yes, I would be interested to see their board.

Why not.  

That was Bob Harlan's justification for Thompson taking Jordy Nelson when the perception was they were set at wide receiver.

Wolf traded a 1st round pick for a drunk third string QB when he was set with Majkowski at QB.   They had big needs on the team at the time, and the trade for Favre was considered a bull**** move at the time.

I was pissed when we made this pick, but I have seen enough to know that these things are never clear at the time.

 

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

It's not "totally different" at all. There is nuance difference, of course. But it's largely an extremely similar situation.

This is silly. QB longevity hasn't shifted in 15 years. We have an unprecedented historical glut (QTY 2) of aging elite QBs (Brees, Brady) that skew your perspective. Hell, Favre's play in 2009 is a counter-example to your own point...

Tua is trash. Love has a higher ceiling than either. Why would you have been happier with a lower ceiling more ready back-up QB? That makes as much sense as a football bat.

Lol, the "scared" route? What utter nonsense. There's nothing "scared" about this pick. It's the polar opposite. It's the least safe pick they could have possibly made...

 

(ugh, sorry vegas, I have no idea why it's quoting you...)

Confused the heck out of me, too!

[TheOnlyThing]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

The happiest part of this pick for me, is that LaFleur and Gute are being called out for never wanting to go all in, accepting just making the playoffs and not caring about winning titles, it took two years, but they've joined the ranks of Ted and Mac (an elite pairing). Glad you guys are consistent. Annoying and wrong, but consistent. 

All in?

In Green Bay?

Just out of curiosity, when is it that you contend that the Packer have come anywhere close to going all in at any time since 2000?

And I don't think it is fair to Mac to insinuate that he necessarily always agreed with the previous GM's inflexible, risk-averse approach to roster building -- especially during the second half of their respective tenures in Green Bay.

Indeed, Mac purportedly had a say in the Cowboys recent signing of Aldon Smith and seemed positively giddy about using the 17th pick in the draft on an explosive WR last night even though Cooper and Gallup are already on his roster. Neither of those moves would have occurred when Mac was the head coach in GB under the prior GM.

As for Gute, while the jury is still out, I certainly concede that his (1) failure to sign a single premium FA this offseason while (2) stocking up on mid-round 2021 compensatory picks, coupled with his (3) first round selection of a player who is unlikely to help the team for at least two seasons comports with the focus and plan for the future/don't stress about the present philosophy that reined in GB prior to his elevation to GM.

[Ragnarok]

Just now, vegas492 said:

Wanna explain this one to me?  The bolded one?

I don't even care about the first one.  I disagree about trading up for an off ball linebacker.  Said I'd give you Queen because it wasn't a large trade up.  I can't even remember who the Titans traded up for.  Thinking Bush for Steelers, who weren't in the playoffs, though injuries rocked that team.  Bills?  I don't think they traded up for that kid, did they?  And what was his PFF score again?  I can't recall, and can't remember my password to get in there.  But I don't think it was anything special.

Bills traded up for Tremaine who is a beast.  Titans traded up for Rashaan Evans who is a beast.  Both those guys were special last year.  Bush was awesome for the Steelers as well.

As for the bolded, it's pretty self-explanatory.  They're focused on 4-5 years down the road and not winning a SB next year.  They know they'll get to the playoffs.  That's good enough for them.

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, Ragnarok said:

Speculation, but I still think the points hold.

Oh absolutely.  But how many teams usually have 4+ QBs with first round grades?  Either we're in the year of the QBs, or the Packers might not have viewed the top QBs as top QBs.